tariki

Hi Jimmy, I was speaking of the "Holy Spirit" in the context of what I see as a "broken suspect belief system". Again, my post implied that there IS such a "spirit" in the sense of a Reality that is healing, and is "a vital ephemeral agent of awareness and healing" For me, Christ/Tao/Brahman/Allah/Logos are interchangeable. Sorry, I have no particular interest in defending myself against your assertions and judgements.

In a sense I see JimmyB as being on the right track. We've all been dealt our own cards, our own time and place, and we need to find our own "path" from out of that. Personally I have trust in Reality. I'm not seeking to argue for it, let alone "prove" it. I just have it. I see it as a product of my own seeking, yet paradoxically, ultimately, as pure gift. As I have said in other threads, and basically quoting from an authority on zen, that expression of the Dharma (Buddhism) developed and cannot be fully understood outside of a worldview that sees reality itself as a vital, ephemeral agent of awareness and healing. That authority goes on to speak of "the liberative qualities of spatiality and temporality". Without wishing to offend anyone, I have no interest in the "Holy Spirit" . That too, as PaulS has said, is simply extracting one thing from a broken, suspect belief system. But if Reality is healing, a heart seeking to be healed will find Reality "guiding" and supporting them. I have no answer to the crushing suffering of our world, but I must needs witness to my own life's experience and the opportunities I believe have been given. I just feel that any guidance received is at an individual level, unique to the individual. It is not from some "entity" seeking to communicate "one truth" that is part of some revelation of a transcendent Being.

Now, what was that Noel Coward song........ah yes, something about mad dogs and Englishmen...

That's the influence of those zen masters for you! In the Pure Land its more, "excuse me, but would you mind shoving it?" (Obviously, this could be simply because I am a refined English Gentleman) 🤪

😄

Here is a cut and paste from something I quoted/posted before, relevant here:- The dharma, can be discovered through the Buddhist tradition, but Buddhism is by no means the only source of dharma. I would define dharma as anything that awakens the enlightened mind and brings on the direct experience of selflessness. The teachings of Christ are prefumed with dharma. There is dharma in jazz, in beautiful gardens, in literature, in Sufi dance, in Quaker silence, in shaman healing, in projects to care for the homeless and clean up the inner cities, in Catholic ritual, in meaningful and competent work. There is dharma in anything that causes us to respect the innate softness and intelligence of ourselves and others. When the Buddhist system is applied properly, it does not turn us inward toward our own organizations, practices, and ideas. The system has succeeded when the Buddhist can recognize the true dharma at the core of all other religions and disciplines that are based on respect for the human image, and has no need to reject them. Reality-as-is is beyond creed or even formulae. The wind blows where it will. "Universal Christ" or "Dharma" as I see it, and trust, healing goes on. Today we can witness to the growth of Support Groups for instance, those who have suffered from a personal trauma, who then seek to help others who are facing the very same challenges. Social Media is often slagged off, but the positives are there. Jesus, as the "Only Way", can safely be left behind in what few pulpits are left.

Having mulled it over, for better or for worse....😄 There was an idea put forward by a Christian theologian, John Dunne I think, of "passing over" - passing over from our own belief system into that of another. Having done so, to return to ones own and seeing it with fresh eyes. As you suggest, far easier said than done. Putting yourself in someone elses shoes is often recommended before "judging" them but often our empathy is in short supply. Where is the deep existential experience that could ever truly put us in another's shoes? I'm thinking now of compassion, compassion as an exchange between equals, "not a meeting of wounded and healer" (Pema Chodron). If so then knowing ourselves, our own darkness, finding our own true, authentic context is as I see it the true imperative. Finding our own context is, as I understand it, to free ourselves of the reflex, knee jerk thoughts and actions built into us by the cultural times we were randomly born into, the conditioning of our upbringing by parents and peer groups. Is that even possible? "Be not conformed to this world." I'm beginning to see the significance of the idea of "individuation" put forward by Carl Jung. Often I've seen it as counter to the "eastern" notions of "no-self", but having "passed over" (not passed out!) and investigated, I now see the connection. We must find our own true context, born of authentic experience. Some things we are born into could well be authentic, others simply wrong. A quagmire. "Who shall untangle this tangle?" asks the Buddha. Myself, I need, and have, faith. Trust in Reality-as-is as a place of healing. Trust in Infinite Compassion, Infinite Wisdom, Infinite Potential. Reality as healing will "give itself" to us, as we trust "so shall it be unto us." Maybe others will not see the connection, but here is Dogen again:- "Therefore, if there are fish that would swim or birds that would fly only after investigating the entire ocean or sky, they would find neither path nor place. When we make this very place our own, our practice becomes the actualization of reality." Those words call for Faith/Trust.

Musing further. I know there are quite a few books these days that question if Jesus ever actually existed. I've read none of them in full detail. But keeping with Bart Erhman (who rejects the non-existence thesis) it seems pretty apparent that the first disciples expected the imminent end of the world, the "return of Jesus in the air", the final judgement. (Evidence for this can even be found in St Paul's letters...." we who are alive at his coming") Obviously it never happened and therefore the "meaning" of it all had to break new ground, this in the thought forms of the world as it was then for the educated. Greek philosophy and what not. Myself, I think "Jesus" must be left behind and the only hope for Christianity is with the Universal Christ. Elsewhere I posted some words related to T.S.Eliot, and they are relevant here:- Eliot feels no compunction in alluding to the Bhagavad Gita in one section of a poem and Dante's Paradiso in the next. He neither asserts the rightness nor wrongness of one set of doctrines in relation to the other, nor does he try to reconcile them. Instead, he claims that prior to the differentiation of various religious paths, there is a universal substratum called Word (logos) of which religions are concretions. This logos is an object both of belief and disbelief. It is an object of belief in that, without prior belief in the logos, any subsequent religious belief is incoherent. It is an object of disbelief in that belief in it is empty, the positive content of actual belief is fully invested in religious doctrine. The Universal Christ would be for Christians the "universal substratum", that which Thomas Merton called The Hidden Ground of Love.

Thank you. Just a quick thought. This is where the Protestant "back to the Bible" idea falls down. As if that was a foundation of certainty. There is no going back. We can only go forward.

Thanks Nolose. Something to mull over. 🤔

As I see it, there is freedom as the fundamental reality. It is the "One" from which all arises. Thus non-duality (NOT "all is one" but rather "not two") In the Buddhist tradition are many deep philosophies way beyond my ken (particularly in the Tibetan traditions) and I admit to having no idea at all if freedom "is a valid concept" or if the various arguments for freedom are cogent. For myself, as far as dependent origination and the Theravada texts, "everything" is dependent/contingent but consciousness alone does not turn back upon itself or depend upon anything else. The nature of consciousness is now a "hot" subject in the popular science realm. "If consciousness is confined to the skull how can joy exist?" ( Zen master) "Whoever told people that 'Mind' means thoughts, opinions, ideas and concepts? Mind means trees, fence posts, tiles and grasses" (Dogen) At another level, irrespective of this, seeking to be free of the shenanigans of our monkey minds is worthwhile.

"Who shall untangle this tangle" are the first words of the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification) Obviously its author, Buddhaghosa, supplied his context, the teachings of the Buddha. Exactly what they are are then spelt out over about 1000 turgid pages. Dogen:- "if there are fish that would swim or birds that would fly only after investigating the entire ocean or sky, they would find neither path nor place." (From Genjokoan) So what "context" should we put things into? "We are the beings who interpret, it is our very being" says a modern philosopher. Do we simply inherit a "context" given the time and place allotted to us, most would say randomly, and live, our lives virtually determined, genuine radical freedom a chimera? Or have we what the zens call an "original face", the face we had before we were born? I think faith comes into it. Not belief as such, but faith that we can find a true path and place irrespective of complete investigation of the "entire ocean and sky". In Christian terms, following Merton, God is freedom, and is his own gift. Radical Incarnation. Reality is a constant advance into novelty. We can join in. End of waffle.

Just to say that I've slipped over onto another forum that revolves around mental health issues. That seems to be where it's at these days. Quite a lively forum!

Hi, I think they are about to become rarer still! 😁 But while we are still here, I've had some experience on other Forums where, after posting of something drawn from the Christian mystics, even the early Church Fathers, the response has been along the lines of it being "new age stuff". In the end you just tend to give up. Others seem happy enough with what they have, belief wise, and I think most like to think it is "orthodox" and grounded in "tradition" irrespective of reality. Anyway, as I said, "We ourselves perhaps supply a "context" according to our understanding. "

Hi, not sure what they might have meant, but in Buddhism anyone can "seek" to "attain" enlightment. Practice on the meditation cushion is aimed at such attainment, to become what you are currently not. This idea is very much "western" orientated, the "I want it and I want it NOW". Any investigation of Buddhism will more often find the idea of "original enlightenment". Realisation rather than attainment. Meditation is an expression of our inherent enlightenment. In Pure Land Buddhism this would be associated with the realisation of "gift". Anyway,I can only assume the Christian guy was seeing things from a dualistic context. Buddhism is non-dual, hence:- "Will you tell us of Other Power? Yes, but there is neither self power nor other power What is, is the Graceful.Acceptance only" (From the Journals of a Pure Land devotee) Specifically answering your question, at least as I understand it, a Christian could seek to meditate and not wish to lose sight of salvation as gift, a gift given by an "Other". Mindfulness/awareness of grace. My understanding is that when various Christian mystics such as Eckhart and St John of the Cross are "heard" and when the Buddhist Dharma is understood, many "differences" waver just a little! We ourselves perhaps supply a "context" according to our understanding.

I see my previous post in reply to Joseph as being sufficient to address/respond to your last two. (As far as chaos is concerned, our two grandchildren have recently turned up)

HWIK? 😁

Appearance and Reality are deemed as "one" by certain cosmological ideas propounded in zen. Again it comes back to "we are what we understand". Thanks Joseph. Although at the moment I find all my speculations and waffling therapeutic, my bedrock could be called the "opinion" (faith) that Reality-as-is, our Cosmos, is not chaotic in any nihilistic sense of that word.

As Dogen says, "we are what we understand"

As I see it, an overall/final purpose, any end product envisaged (teleological) would counteract, even negate/make impossible, radical freedom. I cannot do better than quote again from Hee-Jin Kim, from his book "" Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist" when speaking of the zen notion of "dropping body and mind":- "To cast off the body-mind did not nullify historical and social existence so much as to put it into action so that it could be the self-creative and self-expressive embodiment of Buddha-nature. In being “cast off,” however, concrete human existence was fashioned in the mode of radical freedom—purposeless, goalless, objectless, and meaningless. Buddha-nature was not to be enfolded in, but was to unfold through, human activities and expressions. The meaning of existence was finally freed from and authenticated by its all-too-human conditions only if, and when, it lived co-eternally with ultimate meaninglessness" In "western" and theistic terms, we have Thomas Merton speaking of God, equating God with freedom itself and that God's gift to us is "himself." We also have from Christian mysticism:- "Love has no why" (Meister Eckhart) So, just how "useful" is the idea of purpose? Even in a Cosmos (rather than a chaos)? Or a Chaosmos? Sometimes perhaps we ask the wrong questions, frame them incorrectly, confuse the implications of our "answers". (Jung suggested that the greatest and most important problems of life are all in a certain sense insoluble…. They can never be solved, but only outgrown…...)

Back in Costa's, following a couple of days with the grandchildren, getting them to school and back, feeding and playing. The little lad, 9, is very inventive as far as creating his own games is concerned (when we can drag him away from his kindle) Yesterday he drew over 60 tiny little stick people, each with a number. My job was to cut them out as he is left-handed and we have no special scissors. What I noticed as I cut was that each stick person had individuality, different haircuts - afro's, mohicans, pigtails, punk! It amused me - luckily I'm easily amused! Anyway, I've drifted as usual. For some reason the idea of WWJD has been rolling around in my head, or What Would Jesus Do. I suppose I should rather consider WWBD ( "Buddha", get it?) but the options there are limited to sitting in the lotus position and closing the eyes......😄given the textual evidence. Which in fact makes me think of some of the textual suggestions for copying Jesus. What would I do if I found no tomato's on a tomato plant at Christmas time? What would I do if I found people in a temple or church acting inappropriately? How would I address those whose religious persuasion was different from my own? How would I seek to help a person mentally challenged? How would I care for a parent in certain circumstances? Well, some textual evidence suggests curses, fetching a whip, vindictive and acrimonious language, spying out a herd of pigs, getting someone else to care.......yes we are talking fig trees, money changers, Legion, Pharisees etc etc. Not trying to be controversial. Simply recognising the difference between literalism and what might be called the spirit that blows where it will. Between commandments on tablets of stone and those written on the human heart. Even the literalists, our fundamentalist friends, in effect recognise the difference when they seek WWJD - and thus, the difference in many ways between "Jesus" as historical figure and "Christ" as the eternal logos, or as Thomas Merton said:- The Hidden Ground of Love.

Following on - now in Costa's with extra hot cappuccino - Joyce's Wakese has much that relates to Dogenese. Particularly the "coming together" (the gathering of chaos) in the present moment, keeping in mind what Dogen's own teachers passed on to him in China, this that to teach students the power of the present moment as the only moment "is a skillful teaching of buddha ancestors" but this doesn’t mean that there is no future result from practice. Hee-Jin Kim, in his commentary on Dogen, relates all of this to faith, not always spoken of in western books on zen. Kim explicates how any such creative practice-expression in the present moment is not a matter of some refined understanding, but of deep trust in the activity of Buddha-nature: “Zazen-only cannot be fully understood apart from consideration of faith.” So there is always the hub of the wheel, even though the wheel turns, the "still" point of T.S.Eliot:- At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless; Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is, But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity, Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards, Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.” (Lines from Four Quartets) Of relevance to all this is the wider understanding of what might be seen as the "one way". Deep correspondences can be seen (as above) between Joyce as he seeks the universal within the particular, with Dogen, as he seeks his very own path, time and place. Also with Eliot and that man's insights drawn from his own travels through "eastern" ways and Christian mysticism. Anyone conversant with understandings of the Universal Christ will also see how each relates to the other. How distant from such concord is the "only way" of some fundamentalist sects, where all who challenge one word of their own beliefs are deemed to be goats, to be cast into the outer darkness!

In Wakese the word combines Cosmos (suggesting order, purpose, significance) and chaos. Joyce writes in Finnegans Wake of a constant rise and fall, circular, both for individuals and all Reality. A coming together, a falling apart.

I often browse in books of poetry. This evening I came upon this one, which made me think of this thread:- You say, “If you want to be happy there’s no way, but to be a hermit. Flowers in the grove are better than brocade, every single season’s colours new. Just sit by a creek and turn your head to watch the moon’s ball roll.” And me? I ought to be at joyous ease, but I can’t help thinking of the people in the world. (Shih Te, 8th Century, translation from the Chinese by J. P. Seaton, from "The Poetry of Zen")

I have come across a new word of Wakese while dipping into Finnegans Wake, chaosmos. A combination of chaos and cosmos. Often I have contrasted the two, asking which one Reality was. Joyce obviously had his own ideas and I find it suggestive, given a Reality of becoming rather than a fixed something. (I did come up with one word of Wakese of my own, agonversary. This a word describing a wedding anniversary, combined with the state of the marriage itself.... 😃 Maybe others can give thought to words of their own?)